Hey guys, soon to be developing a strategy game so if anyone is interested i would like to discuss what really makes strategy games tick and what features make them great.
Would people say that a good AI system would be the most important?
or the economy?
Depth without being needless complex and a UI which allows for all information to be easily obtainable. Take the Civ series. I find that Civ 4 to be the highlight of the series. However, it went through numerous simplifications following Civ Revolution which have carried onto Civ 5 & Beyond Earth due to the ease of accessibility which increased overall sales. Conversely, Paradox Interactive has found purchase in very detailed systems based upon a single, unchanging Earth map of real world nations in their Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, and Iron Hearts series (which cover three different periods of human history over the past millenia). Paradox sees much lower numbers than Civ, but makes up for its profitability through having an extremely large amount of DLC that are cost effective in production due to the limited graphics and simple quest system.
There is no one singular formula however for having a truly successful strategy game.
[QUOTE=
Hey guys, soon to be developing a strategy game so if anyone is interested i would like to discuss what really makes strategy games tick and what features make them great.
Would people say that a good AI system would be the most important?
or the economy?
or in cases like CIV, world generation?
Please discuss and share your ideas!
[/QUOTE]
I think game economies & currency systems are what make them fun, I am rather proud when I have 150k points on CoD: Zombies.
[QUOTE=
Hey guys, soon to be developing a strategy game so if anyone is interested i would like to discuss what really makes strategy games tick and what features make them great.
Would people say that a good AI system would be the most important?
or the economy?
or in cases like CIV, world generation?
Please discuss and share your ideas!
[/QUOTE]
For a good strategy game… All of those.
You need good AI to make it a ‘Strategy’ game. (This one really breaks or makes the game.)
And you need a good economic system to make money!
You don’t need to have a world generation system if you don’t want to. Just do what Age of Empires did level wise.
I hope that helps you make a decision! I’ve played most of the strategy games out there! So I know those must be payed attention to the most! As I said, They can really make or break the game!
Funny how everyone here assumes that strategy game = civ. You can make strategy games that have NO AI and are single player. You can make them abstract, random, solveable… it’s about the whole package, you know? To ask what makes a strategy game good is like asking what makes a painting good. It depends on what you want to make and who you want to make it for
There are several types of strategy game, but LDodds did mention CIV. I honestly would like to see some hybrids. I’m personally seeking ways to apply abstract strategy (ie: Chess) to a FPS action combat system. Open to ideas.
As a big fan of Paradox’s “Grand Strategy” games and played every strategy game I saw;I can easily tell AI and complex game mechanics (in terms of depth) is the main reason that keeps players playing.
Casual gamer tend to play CoD and other stuff,and try to stay away from strategies.Most of the strategy game players are “hardcore gamers”.They don’t easily frightened by steep learning curves.I believe this is the reason why we can’t see strategy games as much as survival and other genres. Trend is “4X” games nowadays,and these type offers deep economic,politic,scientific,militaristic etc. mechanics.
People still play Age of Empires 2,but on their own against 8 very hard AIs.People play Civ because Civ somehow manages to stay casual (maybe art style helps with it).However,if don’t remember wrong,playing Texas and “achieving victory” with it in Victoria 2 was impossible.Even producers admitted it.Another example is Luxembourg in HoI 3 (a WW2 game).Some guy managed to survive but with “gamey tactics” and lots of saves/loads.
However lots of games try to get casual players playing with good managed diffuculty settings,not like old Total War series’ cheating AIs (they were getting huge damage,income bonuses on hard diffuculties not increased smartness).For example,AGEOD’s AIs is limiting their thinking algorithms on easy diffuculties.
In short,when I look for a strategy,4X,RTS,turn based,whatever game;I look for relatively realistic feeling (in terms of it’s own logic,a sci-fi game can make feel realistic too),a competent AI and a deeply thinked/constructed mechanic.An important issue is to do this stuff in background.A clunky,not understandable system is a gamebreaker,even for me.When people go into forums for guides etc,and see tips&tricks that didn’t see in-game tooltips they love it.
Today’s computing power is enough to make a very good game.Even in RTS format.Downside is making the game.Strategy games are most hardest genre to prototype and get working flawlessly.
I haven’t seen it posted so I will make the suggestion. An easy way to control your units and issue commands.
Interesting objectives, don’t do simply “destroy building A” or “Kill person X”
Variation in units and enemies.
On the topic of Civ/4X, I look at several important metrics:
Progression. The core of a 4X game. How well can you grow your empire? Is it entertaining and does it make sense for the setting? Economy contributes heavily here, as you spend most of your time acquiring and managing territory and the resources contained therein. I feel that Civ lacks in the area of progression in several ways, primarily the player’s ability to make their civ their own using government policies, traits, etc, as well as the ability to make certain territory more or less important through specialization(think Detroit, silicon valley, hollywood, etc) and importance of resources, which are economic issues.
Manageability. Making a 4X that either requires extreme micromanagement, or is extremely simplified, is perhaps relatively easy. The hard part is to make streamlined systems, and accompanying UI, that both match the setting, simulate the systems in a fun and believable way, and aren’t so simplified as to make the game mundane(Civ Rev). For me, Paradox games require far too much micromanagement, while Civ games are often just a bit on the too-simplified side(apart from pop management which is often Civ’s biggest micromanagement issue).
Interactivity. AI is crucial for interactivity in a 4x game. In Civ 5, it was extremely easy to bottleneck the AI militarily and decimate them without losing a unit, while Civ 4 had stacks of doom that made the AI’s job easier, but was relatively lacking in interactivity(militarily). Most civs have had issues with diplomacy where players don’t know why the AI acts the way it does. Sometime the AI tries to hard to win the “game”, others it just acts insane. AI is of course the hardest thing to get right, and there is really no good simple advice on it other than to say do it right.
Replay value. Civ has this in spades in many ways, but I often find myself thinking it limits civ designers because they don’t feel the need to focus on ways to add more of it. This is where world generation and other procedural systems come into play. Alternate victory conditions, more game creation settings(add/remove key features/systems, exclude specific units, different world generation types, etc), a robust world event system(weather, climate change, asteroid strikes, volcanoes, earthquakes, economic shocks, etc), modular tech tree capabilities, etc, etc.